U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas - National Emergency unlawful and violated the CAA

BlueTex · 2019-10-11T19:55:47.002Z

The winning just keeps coming…

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6467746-2019-10-11-El-Paso-Border-Wall-Ruling.html#document/p33

Demon · 2019-10-11T19:59:14.948Z

So much winning! Especially these last few days.

Apocalypto · 2019-10-11T20:02:11.731Z

That’s 3 court rulings today against fat donald. #winning

AceRothstein · 2019-10-11T20:09:30.072Z

Demon:

So much winning! Especially these last few days.

Honestly, can’t say I’m tired of all this winning.

Demon · 2019-10-11T20:19:17.485Z

Lol, me either.

TheDoctorIsIn · 2019-10-11T20:20:50.696Z

I suspect the circuit will overturn it, on the grounds of standing.

To be clear, I agree with the ruling on the merits. But I don’t know if the claimants have standing - in fact, I’m not sure anyone has standing to challenge it, aside from maybe Congress.

DougBH · 2019-10-11T20:41:44.340Z

This seems like a try to get around Trump v Sierra Club.

Chris · 2019-10-11T20:50:21.003Z

This is not at all surprising. The Legislation branch of Government is the only branch of Government that has the power of the purse. This was reafirmed in Clinton versus City of New York when the SCOTUS ruled that the Line Item Veto Act was unconstitutional back in 1998. Link

moonshine · 2019-10-11T20:52:28.924Z

TheDoctorIsIn:

I suspect the circuit will overturn it, on the grounds of standing.

To be clear, I agree with the ruling on the merits. But I don’t know if the claimants have standing - in fact, I’m not sure anyone has standing to challenge it, aside from maybe Congress.

the ruling specifically addressed standing saying because the county “suffered reputational and economic injuries” as a result of the administration’s rhetoric on the situation at the border and the construction plans that the proclamation entailed.

TheDoctorIsIn · 2019-10-11T20:55:20.122Z

moonshine:

the ruling specifically addressed standing saying because the county “suffered reputational and economic injuries” as a result of the administration’s rhetoric on the situation at the border and the construction plans that the proclamation entailed.

I know. I just don’t think that’ll stand up on appeal.

Smyrna · 2019-10-11T21:47:58.537Z

The judge said to file a proposed injunction with in 10 days and that the other side will have an opportunity to respond with in 5 days of that filing…is a win? How is it a win?

WorldWatcher · 2019-10-11T22:26:16.117Z

DougBH:

This seems like a try to get around Trump v Sierra Club.

Not sure what you mean by this. There is nothing, from my reading to “get around” in Trump v. Sierra Club.

When were oral arguments held when was the decision issued?

My understanding is that the lower court injunction was stayed and appeals could proceed while the government appealed with a writ of certiorari and if such an writ is not timely sought or if the writ is denied the stay will automatically terminate in case the 9th permanent injuction become effective again.

SCOTUSblog

Trump v. Sierra Club - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

.
.
.
.^^^^

DougBH · 2019-10-11T22:38:57.784Z

I don’t know what you don’t understand. The current case is saying the petitioner should prepare a request for a temporary injunction. That is just what was overturned in the Sierra case.
The SC is going to allow such a temporary injunction here but not in the Sierra case?

WuWei · 2019-10-11T22:44:05.918Z

moonshine:

TheDoctorIsIn:

I suspect the circuit will overturn it, on the grounds of standing.

To be clear, I agree with the ruling on the merits. But I don’t know if the claimants have standing - in fact, I’m not sure anyone has standing to challenge it, aside from maybe Congress.

the ruling specifically addressed standing saying because the county “suffered reputational and economic injuries” as a result of the administration’s rhetoric on the situation at the border and the construction plans that the proclamation entailed.

What a joke. The vaunted snowflake charge.

WorldWatcher · 2019-10-11T22:46:14.044Z

DougBH:

I don’t know what you don’t understand. The current case is saying the petitioner should prepare a request for a temporary injunction. That is just what was overturned in the Sierra case.

The SCOTUS did not over turn the injunction, they stayed it’s implementation pending appeal. If there is not appeal or if the writ is denied the injunction becomes active again.

DougBH:

The SC is going to allow such a temporary injunction here but not in the Sierra case?

Don’t know. Different case, different jurisdiction, different plaintiffs and from what I understand different legal arguments.

You response indicated that you thought the SCOTUS has issued a binding decision in Trump v. Sierra which would have been binding nationally. Not the case, this case is in a different circuit and the legal arguments may well be totally different.
.
.
.
.^^^^

DougBH · 2019-10-11T22:47:56.646Z

It indicated no such thing. You interpreted it that way, incorrectly. And the SC is going to have jurisdiction over both temporary injunctions. We will see what happens.

WorldWatcher · 2019-10-11T22:51:01.971Z

WorldWatcher:

This seems like a try to get around Trump v Sierra Club.

You said and I quote: “This seems like a try to get around Trump v Sierra Club.”

There is nothing to “get around” as the decision from the lower court hasn’t even been appealed yet by the government. The Court issued a “stay” in a different case. That’s all. Such a stay is only applicable to the case it was issued for unless the SCOTUS says different. They didn’t.
.
.
.
.^^^^

DougBH · 2019-10-11T23:10:26.961Z

WorldWatcher:

WorldWatcher:

This seems like a try to get around Trump v Sierra Club.

You said and I quote: “This seems like a try to get around Trump v Sierra Club.”

There is nothing to “get around” as the decision from the lower court hasn’t even been appealed yet by the government. The Court issued a “stay” in a different case. That’s all. Such a stay is only applicable to the case it was issued for unless the SCOTUS says different. They didn’t.
.
.
.
.^^^^

There is indeed something to get around in the Sierra case. The court issued a stay of an injunction. That is, in fact, the only thing that I could have meant about “getting around”. This current case includes the court inviting the petitioner to request a similar injunction.
You can’t stop the wall in one jurisdiction, you try to get a similar injunction in another jurisdiction.
Of course the SC hasn’t stayed the second temporary injunction. The El Paso court has just invited the petitioner to request such an injunction.
We will see if, once this injunction is granted, if the SC doesn’t consider this as a way to get around Trump v Sierra.

WorldWatcher · 2019-10-11T23:41:04.189Z

DougBH:

There is indeed something to get around in the Sierra case. The court issued a stay of an injunction. That is, in fact, the only thing that I could have meant about “getting around”.

There is nothing to get around.

DougBH:

This current case includes the court inviting the petitioner to request a similar injunction.

The Judge in the district court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner doesn’t have to request anything. The court issued the injunction the petitioner requested.

The respondent (i.e. the government) is the one that has to make an appeal.

The injunction is what the district court issued. The respondent will appeal and request a stay of the injunction already issued.

DougBH:

You can’t stop the wall in one jurisdiction, you try to get a similar injunction in another jurisdiction.

Different case with different legal arguments. Injunctions and ruling apply to the circumstances of the case being ruled on. Different cases with different legal arguments are not subject to the rulings of the court for a different set of circumstances.

DougBH:

Of course the SC hasn’t stayed the second temporary injunction.

#1. The court in Trump v. Serra issued a permanent injunction not a temporary one. The stay is temporary depending on the actions of the respondent (the government). If they don’t appeal the case to the SCOTUS the permanent injunction becomes active again. If the SCOTUS denies the writ the permanent injunction becomes active again.

#2 Never said the SCOTUS stayed the second injunction out of the Western District in Texas.

DougBH:

The El Paso court has just invited the petitioner to request such an injunction.

The court wouldn’t have invited to appeal a case the petitioner won. The court wouldn’t have invited to so seek and injunction.

The court would have told teh respondent they can appeal seeking a stay of the injunction.

DougBH:

We will see if, once this injunction is granted, if the SC doesn’t consider this as a way to get around Trump v Sierra.

Different case different legal arguments. SCOTUS will have no issue with the Western Texas District court issuing a ruling in a different case since the SCOTUS has not accepted the writ that hasn’t been filed yet, not heard oral arguments in the case, nor rendered a binding decision. Which even they won’t be binding on a case with different legal arguments.
.
.
.
.^^^^

DougBH · 2019-10-12T00:09:50.179Z

WorldWatcher:

The court wouldn’t have invited to appeal a case the petitioner won. The court wouldn’t have invited to so seek and injunction.

The court would have told teh respondent they can appeal seeking a stay of the injunction.

Both cases are about whether the administration can use funds intended for other purposes to build the wall. The circumstances are the same.

Concluding paragraph:

It is finally ordered that plaintiffs…shall file a proposed preliminary injunction specifying the scope of said injunction within ten days and then Defendants…will be granted an opportunity to respond within five days.